You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson (Florida) declares individual mandate unconstitutional
2011-01-31
With Congress at an impasse on repealing President Obama's signature health insurance law, all eyes are on a federal judge who is expected to deliver a ruling Monday about whether portions of the new law pass constitutional muster.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson's ruling will be the biggest judicial decision to come down the pike since groups began filing lawsuits against the bill passed by Congress last March. Twenty-six states are parties to the suit, which claims a mandate to insist Americans purchase a product is unconstitutional.
Just in on a headline and no link yet on Foxnews.com, the judge declared the individual mandate unconstitutional.
Posted by:DarthVader

#18  That's great news then Deac. As long as he is upheld through the Supremes then Obamacare is repealed -- totally.
Posted by: OldSpook   2011-01-31 22:56  

#17  The 10th amendment expressly forbids the Federal Government from doing Education, Labor, Abortion, Energy, EPA, FDA, etc... Only a twisted, torn, and beaten Commerce Clause is used as 'authorization'.

Not that it makes any difference to the Ruling Class.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2011-01-31 22:50  

#16  This is really great news. Understandably the Seattle libs are really screaming and want the judge's head.
So Obumble took a page out of John Skerry's play book: " I was aginst it ( mandatory coverage) before I was for it."
Posted by: USN,Ret   2011-01-31 22:28  

#15  "Does this also remove your Department of Education?"

We can but hope, BP.

Actually, there is nothing in the Constitution authorizing the federal gummint to be involved in education, health care, welfare, etc. A whole lot of people obviously don't understand the meaning of "enumerated powers."
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2011-01-31 22:16  

#14  Education is even more of an individual mandate and via tax, others are forced by the state to pay.

Does this also remove your Department of Education?
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2011-01-31 21:38  

#13  Yay, Judge Vinson! We should name an aircraft carrier after him.

I can only assume that Michelle'sMandatory Movement refers to her giant, jiggling... I can't go on. The horror...the horror.
Posted by: SteveS   2011-01-31 19:54  

#12  The Judge did address severability. He wrote that if one part is un-constitutional then the whole bill is un-constitutional. He said the parts cannot be separated out.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2011-01-31 19:11  

#11  no severability
Posted by: Frank G   2011-01-31 19:09  

#10  I didn't see it, but did he address severability? Obamacare law has a flaw - it has NO severability clause, which means if you strike down one part, the whole thing goes. The previous judge to rule on this avoided the severability issue and deliberately (and perhaps unlawfully) limited his scope.

If this one is properly constructed, ALL of Obamacare is gone, including the 1099 mess and all the other things that were larded into the bill.
Posted by: OldSpook   2011-01-31 18:56  

#9  I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house

That has got to leave a mark on O's face.
Posted by: Charles   2011-01-31 18:39  

#8  Until Michelle's Mandatory Movement kicks in ...

col!

(Cackle Out Loud)
Posted by: gorb   2011-01-31 16:44  

#7  Magnificently reasoned decision. And without a severability clause, it has to hold in the SC. Thank God there are a few honest judges left, unwilling to trample on thier oath to please various of our liberal political mandarins. Yhe nation owes Jusge Vinson a debt of thanks for doing his duty courageously.
Posted by: NoMoreBS   2011-01-31 16:41  

#6  Until Michelle's Mandatory Movement kicks in ...
Posted by: lotp   2011-01-31 16:38  

#5  It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause.

So I'm safe for the time being.
Posted by: gorb   2011-01-31 16:24  

#4  Thanks for that segment of the ruling, Bevis. A segment of Bevis' segment of the ruling:

It is difficult to imagine that a nationwhich began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.

Very nice how the Judge referred to Tea, as in Tea Party.

Reminds me, time for my afternoon cup of Tea.
Posted by: Betty Elmaiting3879   2011-01-31 16:19  

#3  Here's the ruling

I loved this

It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congresscan regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. If it has the power to compelan otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third partymerely by asserting --- as was done in the Act --- that compelling the actualtransaction is itself “commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affectsinterstate commerce” [see Act § 1501(a)(1)], it is not hyperbolizing to suggest thatCongress could do almost anything it wanted. It is difficult to imagine that a nationwhich began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate givingthe East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold inAmerica would have set out to create a government with the power to force peopleto buy tea in the first place. If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failingto engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would havebeen in vain for it would be “difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power”
Posted by: Beavis   2011-01-31 15:48  

#2  Fox News article here
Posted by: lotp   2011-01-31 15:33  

#1  Somebody finally read the Constitution of the United States of America. And the ObamaCare Law.
Posted by: Ebbeng Tingle2833   2011-01-31 15:25  

00:00